Q. Do you support evacuation of the Hindus from the affected areas
if the League Government or the majo­rity community agrees to give
us due compensation?
A. He had supported the proposition from the non­violent standpoint. It
was applicable to all provinces whether the majority was Hindu or
Muslim. What could the Government do if the majority had become so
hostile that they would not tolerate the presence of the minority
com­munity? In his opinion it would be improper for them to force
the majority into submission, nor could they under­take to protect
the minority at the point of the bayonet. Suppose for instance that
the majority would not tolerate Ramadhun or the clapping (to keep
time with the chanting), would not listen to the fact that Rama was
not a person but the name was synonymous with God, and that the
Hindus believed in clapping, and that the Muslims would not tolerate
it, he had then no hesitation in saying that the minority should
evacuate if adequate compensa­tion was paid.
Q. What should a Hindu worker do when he is being deliberately
misrepresented by interested parties in Noakhali?
A. The answer in terms of Ahimsa, generally, would be that acts should
be allowed to speak for themselves.
Whilst this was good as a general proposition there were occasions
when to speak and explain was a duty and not to speak would amount
to a falsehood. Therefore wisdom dictated that there were some
occasions when speech must accompany action. Of course there was an
occasion when mere thought would take the place of speech and
action. Such was the attribute of the Almighty and might be almost
possible for one in a billion, but he knew no such instance.
Q. You have advised evacuation if the majority be­come irrevocably
hostile. But you have also maintained that a truly non-violent man
should never give up hope of converting his opponent by love. Under
these circums­tances, how can non-violent man accept defeat and
evacuate?
A. As to this question, it was perfectly correct that a non-violent man
would not move out of his place. For such a one there would be no
question of compensation. He would simply die at his post and prove
that his pre­sence was not a danger to the State or the community.
He knew that the Hindus of Noakhali made no such pretension. They
were simple folk who loved the world and wanted to live in the world
in peace and safety. Such persons would consult their honour if the
Government honourably offered them compensation in order to see the
majority living in peace. If the mere presence of the Hindus
irritated the Muslims who were the majority, he would consider it to
be the duty of the Government to offer compensation as it would be
of the Government in a Hindu majority province to offer compensation
to the Muslims if their presence irritated the majority community.
Q. In case of evacuation, under advice from the Go­vernment, should
the evacuees ask for compensation for: all their movable and immovable property, loss of business?
In other words, what would you consider to be ade­quate compensation?
A. Gandhiji said that the Government would be obliged to compensate for
both immovable and movables when the latter could not or were not
carried away with him by the evacuee. Loss of business was a
ticklish question. He could not conceive the possibility of any
Government shouldering the burden of such compensation. He would
understand the proposition that asked for a reasonable sum for
enabling the person concerned to start business in a new place.
Whilst he examined and admitted the possibility of evacuation, his
experience of all India told him that the Hindus and the Muslims
knew how to live at peace among themselves. He declined to believe
that people had said goodbye to their senses so as to make it
impossible to live at peace with each other as they had done for
generations.
For, he believed with the late Poet Iqbal that the Hindus and the
Muslims who had lived together long under the shadow of the mighty
Himalayas and had drunk the waters of the Ganga and the Jamuna had a
unique message for the world.